The purpose of this blog is to provide analytical commentary on formal and informal labour organisations and their attempts to resist ever more brutal forms of exploitation in today’s neo-liberal, global capitalism.

Tuesday, 23 January 2018

Trump, the rise of China and labour: What future for ‘Free’ Trade Agreements?

What are the
implications of the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific
Partnership and to re-negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)?
How does the rise of China affect global free trade? And perhaps even more
importantly, what should labour’s position on free trade look like? In this blog
post, I publish the interview, which I gave to Bruno Dobrusin from the Argentine
Workers' Central Union(Central de Trabajadores de la Argentina, CTA)
addressing these and related questions about the
future of ‘free’ trade agreements.

Bruno Dobrusin, CTA: The WTO
Ministerial meeting happened in Buenos Aires in December 2017; why is this
organization relevant?

Andreas Bieler: The WTO Doha negotiations round
failed in 2008 at the latest. Nevertheless, the WTO has continued supporting an
expanded ‘free’ trade regime including not only trade in goods, but also
services, public procurement, intellectual property rights, agriculture and
trade related investment measures as well as the highly contentious
investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. In short, it continues to
undermine national sovereignty restricting states’ right to determine their own
development strategies. At the same time, it is clear that there are many
divisions between WTO members about the way ahead in view of the ministerial
meeting in Buenos Aires. Agreement on individual issues is anything but assured
(see WTO, 24 October 2017).

The WTO’s
involvement in free trade in agriculture is one of the key areas, which highlights
its negative impact on developing countries. Despite the danger of import
dependence in relation to food due to fluctuating world market prices, the WTO
continues to support free trade in order to achieve food security. As its Deputy
Director-General Alan Wolff stated in October 2017:

‘It is widely
acknowledged that trade openness can make a positive contribution to each of
the four dimensions of food security as espoused by the FAO, namely
availability, access, utilization and stability. Trade openness increases the
availability of food by enabling products to flow from surplus to deficit
areas, connecting the "land of the plenty to the land of the few". It
enhances access as it contributes to faster economic growth, higher incomes and
higher purchasing power. Indeed, in response to the transmission of unbiased
price signals, it encourages an effective allocation of resources based on
comparative advantages, thus limiting inefficiencies’ (Wolff, 24 October 2017).

Bruno Dobrusin, CTA: What can we
expect from China's role regarding the WTO?

Andreas Bieler: Since its accession to the WTO in
2001, China has increasingly orientated its economic policy in line with the
WTO. Considering its heavy export dependence, the country is highly unlikely to
try pushing the WTO into a different direction. There may be disagreements over
individual issues, but as such China is likely to continue supporting the
‘free’ trade system.

Bruno Dobrusin, CTA: How has the
election of Trump, Brexit, and the rise of the right-wing in several European
countries come to challenge multilateral trade projects?

Andreas Bieler: Neo-liberal globalisation, of which
the expanded ‘free’ trade agenda has been one of the key components, has
resulted in increasing inequality within and between countries. This has also
included an increasing gap between the rich and the poor in industrialised
countries with many people losing out as a result of an integrated global
political economy. These ‘losers’ of globalisation have become a fertile ground
for right-wing, often xenophobic political parties. As I see it, this will not
result in an end of the ‘free’ trade system or a more equitable distribution of
wealth. Instead, the danger is that migrant workers are being used as
scapegoats for the general hardship larger and larger parts of society
experience. These are dangerous times for the labouring classes, with capital
intending to downplay its own role in causing economic hardship by driving a
wedge between different parts of the working class.

Bruno Dobrusin, CTA: Trade agreements
have come under fire from the left and right. The US pulled-out of
TPP, NAFTA is being renegotiated. Do you think there is fundamental change
ahead? Are we moving away from a free trade-oriented global politics?

Andreas Bieler: At first sight, the US has moved
away from ‘free’ trade under Donald Trump. From a workers’ perspective, I think
we have to be careful and should not expect improvements of the situation of
the labouring classes. Partly, because of the racism and xenophobism, which has
come with it (see above). And partly, because we can already see now how the
interests of transnational capital become re-asserted in the renegotiation of
NAFTA. ‘Rather than put good-paying jobs, better wages, and human rights at the
center of NAFTA’s renegotiation, as unions and others have demanded, big
corporations are pushing to “modernize” NAFTA in ways that strengthen corporate
power’ (Stamoulis, 31 October 2017).

Bruno Dobrusin, CTA: Where do you
think workers' movements fit in within this debate? Unions in the US and Canada
are arguing for 'stronger labour and environmental provisions' in the
renegotiated NAFTA. Is this a possible road?

Andreas Bieler: Stronger labour and environmental
provisions would definitely be a positive step from a workers’ perspective. As
the current renegotiation of NAFTA, however, indicates, this will be difficult
to achieve. And even if it was achieved, these would be mainly flanking measures,
unable to challenge the generally underlying ‘free’ trade dynamics, which have
proven to be so disastrous for workers in all three countries involved.

Bruno Dobrusin, CTA: You have worked
on alternatives to neoliberal free trade; how would these look like?

Andreas Bieler: Ben Selwyn in his book The Global Development Crisis (Polity, 2014) has outlined, correctly in my view, that
neither market-based nor state-led strategies of development benefit workers.
In fact, both have been characterised by super-exploitation of workers. Instead,
what we need is labour-centred development for and by labour movements.

Clearly, various national
labour movements find themselves in rather different locations within the
global political economy. Unsurprisingly, they have often found it difficult to
adopt a common position on specific ‘free’ trade proposals. Hence, in my report
‘From “Free
Trade” to “Fair Trade”: Proposals for Joint Labour Demands towards an
Alternative Trade Regime’for the Futures Commission of the Southern Initiative on Globalisation and
Trade Union Rights (SIGTUR) I have focused on
joint demands, which
can potentially be supported by labour movements from all over the world in the
collective struggle for a “fair trade” regime. One set of potential demands is
suggested around the re-assertion of national sovereignty, including the
democratisation of trade policy-making, the right to food sovereignty as well
as the national right to decide independently on the use of a country’s raw
materials. Another set of potential demands is directed against the increasing
structural power of transnational corporations, including the core ILO
conventions, the demand to close tax havens, the exclusion of key resources
such as water, medicines and education from trade agreements, and the end to
investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.

Adopting joint
principles of this kind may allow labour movements from around the world to play
a much stronger role in trade negotiations. They may provide the first steps
for going beyond amending the current trade regime towards its complete
transformation in the service of the labouring classes.